User talk:RuudVanClerk

Please do not delete complete Soorma section from muslim rajpoots without discussing on talk page first.Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to wikipedia

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions notifocation for South Asian social groups

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

About Upper Backward Castes

Hello. I notice that you have repeatedly added a "notability" tag to this article, and you have restored it when it was removed. When you add any kind of tag to an article, you are supposed to go to the article's talk page and explain why you added it, or what your objection is. Talk page discussion, not edit summaries, is the way to work out this kind of disagreement. I note that the subject does have sixteen references, most of which appear to be Reliable Sources, so it is unclear why you are calling it non-notable. Make your case at the article talk page, and do not edit war. Thank you. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN Sure I will happily explain it, thank you for letting me know as I seem to have forgot to do so. Btw could you please address by post on the administrators noticeboard please:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1085308374

It’s concerning that my repeated attempts to have this amicably resolved by notifying the administrators have been ignored. RuudVanClerk (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Lord 0f Avernus

Hello, RuudVanClerk. You have new messages at Lord 0f Avernus's talk page.
Message added 10:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi, Please refrain from WP:FOLLOWING me on wikipedia, i understand one can have similar interests but if you keep following me to any new page i visit it raises suspicion of WP:SOCK , i have already got tagged as your sock in an investigation once in your WP:EW with some other user. I dont want to get tagged again, So if you have kept a tab on my edit history i would request you to untag me. I know its not against the rule per se but i will have to get this in the notice of an admin, otheriwise. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I followed you? RuudVanClerk (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, see this [1] , if its a coincidence , I apologize.

But it looks highly circumspect that you made you first edit on this page just hours after i made my first edit on this page. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a coincidence. If you see my edit history, you will note that I edit in relation to various social groups in the North-West. RuudVanClerk (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

Hi! I don't know if you're aware of the WP:BRD principle: if you make a bold change and it's reverted, the onus generally is on your to start a discussion and get consensus for your changes. This is especially the case for page moves: because of the repercussions on redirects and other articles, repeated moves can be disruptive. If a bold move is reverted, then generally your next step is to start an RM discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If would first need to be established that the change or edit is bold but I am happy to discuss this on the respective article talk pages. RuudVanClerk (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, really have a look at WP:BRD. The word "bold" here isn't some characterisation for a daring action, it simply refers to any action performed without prior discussion. Most edits on the Wikipedia are bold, and the crucial question here is on how to proceed if they're reverted. – Uanfala (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that this is beginning to look what people here would normally refer to as disruption. If your bold move is reverted, then you should get consensus for the new title via an RM discussion, not continue making the move over and over again after it's been reverted. – Uanfala (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala This seems to be a case of Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot as you have now unfortunately breached the 3 revert rule. Very sad that it has got to this stage! RuudVanClerk (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I breached WP:3RR? – Uanfala (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding Rajput-related articles and editing

RuudVanClerk, as you may have noticed I have over the past day responded to complaints and issues stemming from Rajput-related articles at various venues including my talkpage, ANEW, ANI, Talk:Rajput and Talk:Zamindars of Bihar. I am dropping this note to you (and other involved editors) in order to remind you all of the WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions applicable to this subject area, and since the edit-warring, grievance collection and tit-for-tat complaining that I have observed has become disruptive. Setting aside the questions of past interactions and who-is-more-to-blame for now, please try to model your individual editing (which you alone control!) in the future to be in line with wikipedia's content and conduct policies and best practices. Abecedare (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information

Hi, I saw your comments on a page I think it would be better if you can go through Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines as well as some of the other rules. Please do remember there is already WP:GSCASTE in place, so every editors should keep that in mind while editing and replying on talk page. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khanate of Sibir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalmyk. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is RuudVanClerk. Thank you. – Uanfala (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely as not being here to help build an encyclopedia and for POV-pushing, battleground editing, and (the most serious issue) misuse of sources. Compare this discussion. You can request unblock by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 15:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Proposed deletion of Treatment of Sikh workers in Italy

The article Treatment of Sikh workers in Italy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article was created by a user who recently got blocked for persistent misrepresentation of sources. Even if this article is source-checked and then rewritten, its topic is still likely not notable: there doesn't appear to be anything special about the treatment of Sikh workers in Italy that's different from e.g. what happens to Punjabi workers more broadly. Probably the article with the narrowest scope that can reasonably be written on this topic is Indian immigrant labourers in Italy.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]